CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 165×152×27 vs WT 6X17.5

Tee 165×152×27 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 6X17.5 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 92.8 cm³ against 93.57 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.8%. WT 6X17.5 is the lighter of the two at 26 kg/m against 27 kg/m, a saving of 3.8% on steel weight. WT 6X17.5 is deeper, 158.8 mm against 155.1 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 165×152×27
Tees (from UB)
WT 6X17.5
WT
Difference
Mass27 kg/m26 kg/m+3.8%
Depth155.1 mm158.8 mm-2.3%
Width166.9 mm166.6 mm+0.2%
Web thickness7.9 mm7.6 mm+3.9%
Flange thickness13.7 mm13.2 mm+3.8%
Area34.4 cm²33.4 cm²+3.0%
Second moment, major (Iy)642 cm⁴666 cm⁴-3.6%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)92.8 cm³93.57 cm³-0.8%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)52.2 cm³52.93 cm³-1.4%
Second moment, minor (Iz)531 cm⁴507.8 cm⁴+4.6%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)97.8 cm³93.898 cm³+4.2%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.93 cm3.91 cm+0.5%
Torsion constant (It)17.3 cm⁴15.36 cm⁴+12.6%

Tee 165×152×27 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 6X17.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 6X17.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 6X17.5 has the larger second moment of area: 666 cm⁴ against 642 cm⁴, a difference of 3.6%. This matters more often than the strength comparison, because on normal floor spans deflection rather than bending capacity sets the beam size - so if the two are close on modulus but apart on inertia, the stiffer one is usually the better answer even when it is not the stronger one.

Measured as bending capacity per kilogram of steel, WT 6X17.5 is the more efficient section: 3.6 against 3.4 cm³ per kg/m, 4.5% better. Over a floor of repeated beams that difference is real tonnage, though it is often outweighed by whichever section the fabricator can actually source.

These come from different catalogues, so treat the swap as a design change rather than a like-for-like substitution. Tees (from UB) sections are specified to BS EN 10365:2017 and WT to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; the steel grades, tolerances and available lengths differ, connection details and bolt gauges are set out differently, and the two are rarely both stocked in the same market. Check availability before changing a section on a drawing to save 3.8% weight.

In short, WT 6X17.5 is the stronger section and WT 6X17.5 is the lighter one; where those are the same section, it is the clear choice, and where they are not, decide on whether your design is governed by capacity or by tonnage.

Common questions

They are effectively equal in bending. Tee 165×152×27 has a plastic modulus of 92.8 cm³ and WT 6X17.5 has 93.57 cm³, a difference of only 0.8% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

WT 6X17.5 at 26 kg/m, against 27 kg/m for the other - a saving of 3.8%. Over a repeated floor beam that is a real cost difference, but check it against the deflection case before taking it.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 6X17.5 gives 93.57 cm³ of plastic modulus and 666 cm⁴ of inertia against 92.8 cm³ and 642 cm⁴. But they are from different catalogues (BS EN 10365:2017 and AISC Shapes Database v16.0), so this is a design change, not a drop-in swap: re-check deflection, connection detailing and local availability.

WT 6X17.5, with a second moment of area of 666 cm⁴ against 642 cm⁴ (3.6% more). Deflection under a uniform load goes as 5wL⁴/384EI, so it is inversely proportional to I - on a span where the deflection limit governs rather than strength, this is the number that decides the section.

Related comparisons

Tee 165×152×27 vs ST 6X15.9
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…